This is true in the same way that being poor is due to money spent > money earned. It reduces a complex and difficult problem to a smug soundbite.

This is obviously true, but it's not as simple as it may seem.

The body has a complex energy regulation system and hunger, energy consumption via metabolism and energy storage are interlaced. It's not as simple as "energy in" = independent variable.

It has a preference to store (instead of immediately use) calories from carbohydrates (due to insulin). So a diet low in total calories but still high in carbs is going to be painful, and very frequently fails.

Read Gary Taubes' book, people.

This is fundamentally true but I usually add this caveat: All calories aren't equal.

Having a negative energy balance is going to ultimately lead to weight loss, yes. But it's important to eat good foods (whole grains, fruits, vegetables) so you 'feel better' even though you're eating less calories.

This journal article (A Role for Sweet Taste: Calorie Predictive Relations in Energy Regulation by Rats: http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/bne-feb08-swithers.pdf ) is about a comparing natural and artificial sweeteners. The point of the article is the rats fed artificial sweeteners gained more weight than the rats fed real sugar.

It's just a little evidence in support of the original author's assertion that 'Light products are for pussies.' The truth is that while that Diet Coke may have less calories in it, it can also lead to an increase in appetite (read: weight gain.)

If you only you could expand that into a book or expensive program... darn it all.

This is some sort of radical fad of eating less and exercising?

Perhaps they will make a pill for this?